Mike Lee on Civil Rights

Equality means giving citizens the right to define marriage

Lee missed the mark when he says: "But where does this new inequality come from? From government--every time it takes rights and opportunities away from the American people and gives them instead to politicians, bureaucrats and special interests." That
is partially true, but it fails to highlight the larger factors at play including family disintegration (which he has talked about at length) and even mate selection (educated, well-off people marry each other).

Gay marriage doesn't promote inequality.
Lee says, among other things, that inequality "is denying citizens their right to define marriage in their states as traditionally or as broadly as their diverse values dictate." Inequality can be seen as preventing stable couples from marrying. In any
event, the Defense of Marriage Act (which he and others supported) did not allow for states to self-define marriage as diversely as they saw fit; it limited that option by inflicting economic penalties on married gay couples (hence it was overturned).

Ground Zero mosque is a poke in the eye to victims

Utah's candidates disagree on whether an Islamic center and mosque should be built near NYC's Ground Zero. Lee is saying he is sympathetic to critics, while Granato argues it's clearly a freedom of religion issue.

Lee says there's no question those who
want to build the mosque have the right to do so; that's not up for debate, he said. "I'm certainly sympathetic to those who have expressed a viewpoint that this is right at Ground Zero," Lee said. "It's right across the street from a place where 1000s

Source: Thomas Burr in Salt Lake Tribune
, Aug 24, 2010

I do not support gay marriage; nor gays in military

Q: What action, if any, should the Senate take on such gay rights issues as the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy or moves to allow gay marriage?

A: We should not reverse a current policy that works. I do not support gay marriage.

Source: Deseret News Candidate Questionnaire
, Jul 2, 2010

Voted NO on reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act.

Congressional Summary:Amends the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA) to add or expand definitions of several terms used in such Act, including :

"underserved populations" as populations that face barriers in accessing and using victim services because of geographic location, religion, sexual orientation or gender identity; and

"youth" to mean a person who is 11 to 24 years old.

Opponent's Argument for voting No (The Week; Huffington Post, and The Atlantic):
House Republicans had objected to provisions in the Senate bill that extended VAWA's protections to lesbians, gays, immigrants, and Native Americans. For example, Rep. Bill Johnson (R-OH) voted against the VAWA bill because it was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference." The objections can be grouped in two broadly ideological areas--that the law is an unnecessary overreach by the federal government, and that it represents a "feminist" attack on family values. The act's grants have encouraged states to implement "mandatory-arrest" policies, under which police responding to domestic-violence calls are required to make an arrest. These policies were intended to combat the too-common situation in which a victim is intimidated into recanting an abuse accusation. Critics also say VAWA has been subject to waste, fraud, and abuse because of insufficient oversight.

Congressional summary::Prohibits any interpretation of US administrative agencies, as applied with respect to individuals domiciled in a state of the United States:

the term "marriage" from including any relationship that the state does not recognize as a marriage; and

the term "spouse" from including an individual who is a party to a relationship that is not recognized as a marriage by that state.

Opponent's argument against (CNN.com Feb. 8 report on Attorney General Eric Holder's action which prompted this bill): In a major milestone for gay rights, the US government expanded recognition of same-sex marriages in federal legal matters, including bankruptcies, prison visits and survivor benefits. "It is the Justice Department's policy to recognize lawful same-sex marriages as broadly as possible, to ensure equal treatment for all members of society regardless of sexual orientation," Attorney General Eric Holder said.
The federal expansion includes 34 states where same-sex marriage isn't legal. For example, a same-sex couple legally married in Massachusetts can now have a federal bankruptcy proceeding recognized in Alabama, even though it doesn't allow same-sex marriages.

Proponent's argument in favor (Washington Post Feb. 13 reporting on Sen. Ted Cruz): If passed, the bill would cede marriage definition to states for federal purposes, which would effectively reverse the gains same-sex couples made after the Defense of Marriage Act was overturned by the Supreme Court in June 2013. Cruz said, "I support traditional marriage. The federal government has tried to re-define marriage, and to undermine the constitutional authority of each state to define marriage consistent with the values of its citizens. The Obama Administration should not be trying to force gay marriage on all 50 states."